A Review of Marvin Moore’s Challenges to the Remnant
Posted September 19th, 2008 by David A. Pendleton
image:
The concepts of “remnant” and “true church” are not foreign to members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Long intertwined with Adventist history and culture has been the notion of Adventism as a prophetic minority which alone has been faithful to God.
Whether all Adventists still believe this is not clear, but author Marvin Moore in his recent book, Challenges to the Remnant: Adventists, Catholics, and the ‘True Church’, certainly does: “throughout the ages, God has had a faithful remnant in the world,” he writes. The book’s target audience can no doubt assume that Seventh-day Adventists constitute that remnant.
Now that I have given away half of Moore’s plot, let me share the second half. To whom is Moore referring as challenging Adventism? Moore uses “challenge” in at least two different ways in his book. In his conclusion, he uses “challenge” neutrally in that the “great challenge to the Remnant today is the challenge to prepare to be a part of that eternal heavenly church ….” But his subtitle provides a not-so-subtle hint that he also believes the Catholic Church is a challenge, if not an affront, to Adventism. The glove has been removed and slapped across the denominational divide.
From the very first chapter – “Benedict’s Startling Announcement” – the reader is on notice that the “red meat” of Adventist theology is on the menu. Interestingly enough, however, the document Moore references is neither from Pope Benedict, nor is it startling, nor is it an announcement.
What Moore references is not a papal encyclical, nor a document approved by an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, nor a text voted on by bishops gathered for a synod. Rather, it is commentary released by a department within the Vatican. Its title, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” identifies it not as a Constitution, Decree, or Declaration.
For those not entirely familiar with the Catholic Church’s canon law, there is a hierarchy of legal documents within the Catholic Church. A Constitution, as one might imagine, would be accorded the highest status of canon law; the others function and interrelate akin to federal statutes, state constitutions, state statues, city charters, and municipal ordinances in the secular legal system. All are important, all constitute law, and all are binding. But that which is lower cannot amend or alter that which is higher.
How would a Catholic understand the document entitled “Responses to Some Questions”? Answer: precisely the same way an Adventist would understand a similarly titled document issued, for example, under the letterhead of a department of the General Conference. When Angel Rodriguez writes his column for Adventist Review, do Adventists describe that writing as “an edict of Jan Paulsen”?
No Adventist would argue that the Seventh-day Adventist Biblical Research Institute, the faculty of the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary, or the GC Ministerial Department, to name three examples, has the authority to change the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Yet Moore implies that commentary from a Vatican Department can override a Constitution of the Second Vatican Council.
“Responses to Some Questions,” while important and official, is not an amendment to a document of the Second Vatican Council, but commentary thereon. It does not control but in fact is controlled by the documents of Vatican II.
Perhaps the most important and in some respects the most forward-looking Vatican II document was Lumen Gentium (“Dogmatic Constitution of the Church”), which held that the Catholic Church is “linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name Christian, though they” are not Catholic Christians.
Another would be Unitatis Redintegratio (“Decree on Ecumenism”), which states that Christians who are not Catholic are nonetheless “separated brethren.” The “Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers ….” As Christians – whether Protestant or Orthodox – they have a “right to be honored by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord ....” (“Brothers,” by the way, is not meant as an exclusive reference to males but as inclusive of humanity in both its genders.)
The point of these documents, and the overwhelming weight of official Catholic commentary thereon, is that one’s salvation is not dependent on affiliation with one particular Christian denomination. Cardinal Dulles, as recently as early 2008, reiterated the message of Lumen Gentium: “Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted.”
Whether out of lack of understanding or lack of space, Moore’s book fails to clearly explain the Hierarchy of Truth (“different truths of faith are ‘organized’ around a center”) and the Analogy of Faith (“every individual statement of belief must be understood in the light of the Church’s whole objective body of faith”). While not as careless as Jan Marcussen’s National Sunday Law, Moore indiscriminately quotes from documents accorded varying degrees of authority within Catholic canon law and written at different times in history without identifying and explaining such. He fails to explain the Catholic distinction between truth, on the one hand, and a particular expression of that truth in a given place and time.
Catholics believe in the development of doctrine, not that truth changes, but rather that God leads his followers into greater understanding of truth or expression of that truth over time. Theology is never written in a vacuum but is often developed in response to questions posed at that time and expressed in a vocabulary and tone shaped by a historical milieu. Thus the Creeds were formulated in response to arising heresies.
Catholics believe that the truth of a doctrine is not immune to cultural or historical context, and therefore one ought to be cautious about necessarily identifying an historical articulation of that truth with the core of that truth. Indeed, they are related, but they are not necessarily identical.
In closing, this is an important work for Seventh-day Adventist Christians to read. I recommend it. I say this not because this is the only perspective on the Roman Catholic Church which sincere Adventists may consider. Rather, it is a classic perspective on the Roman Catholic Church, one with which Adventists must honestly grapple.
While Moore is less combative in his choice of words than Ellen G. White was in the 19th century, one is to expect such “toning down” over time. The tenor of all documents issued by the various Christian communities, including that of the Roman Catholic Church, has softened over the centuries, becoming more sensitive, inclusive, and more gracious in spirit. Compare modern 21st century Lutheran Church documents with those, say, of Martin Luther penned in the 16th century against the Jews or the peasant uprising.
This book provides an occasion for Adventists to wrestle with whether this classic perspective on Catholicism is essential to Adventism. Does the belief that the Catholic Church is the beast of prophecy serve as the mark of authentic Adventism? If so, why didn’t Jesus preach a single sermon on this topic?
Closer to home, why is this belief not expressly among the 28 Fundamental Beliefs? Is it because this understanding is so foundational that its truth is without contestation and can be presumed by all Adventists? If so, are there other foundational yet unwritten Fundamental Beliefs of Adventism?
Or is this belief excluded from the 28 Fundamental Beliefs precisely because it is not fundamental to Adventism? How should conscientious Adventists interpret this intentional silence?
While I believe this book to be worthwhile reading, there are many ideas, in addition to Moore’s view on Catholic Christianity, with which I respectfully disagree. Three further examples suffice.
First, Moore writes that the “mission of God’s Remnant will be to explain that these disasters are a result of the world’s refusal to honor the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment.” Taking Moore’s choice of words at face value, God caused the 2005 Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Tsunami off of the coast of Thailand and Indonesia, the 1989 San Francisco earthquake, and the 1755 Lisbon earthquake and their attendant suffering and countless deaths. What of the pre-Sinai natural disasters? Were those also sent by God to punish those who failed to keep the seventh-day Sabbath? Surely Adventism does not believe this. God does not send natural disasters to punish non-Adventists!
Second, Moore asserts that the “explosive growth of the Seventh-day Adventist Church” validates its status as God’s Remnant and that salvation at some point will depend on one’s observing the Seventh-day Sabbath. This raises a question of demographic importance: In 1908 there were about 1.7 billion non-Adventists in the world, today in 2008 there are over 6 billion non-Adventists, and by 2108 there will be well in excess of 7 billion non-Adventists, even if we assume the membership of the Adventist Church grows by a billion or two in the next century. If salvation is dependent on what day individuals attend church, Moore’s “explosive growth” is not quite explosive enough. Either Adventists need to work much harder, or God in his mercy needs to come a lot sooner!
Third, Moore takes exception to the fact that in one Catholic document the word “communion” rather than church is used in reference to Protestant denominations. He reads into that choice of words a slur, a slight, and a pejorative. None should be taken. One of the most cherished expressions of Catholics is “the communion of saints.” It is in this gracious sense that “communion” is employed. Furthermore, a noted Adventist publication (Questions on Doctrine, Question #20, p. 187) uses “communion” without any negative implication intended or inference drawn. As Moore sees it, Adventists can use the word communion, but when Catholics use it they intend to insult.
Catholic theologian William H. Shannon describes what Catholics mean by communion: “In heaven the ecumenical goal is fully realized. No longer are there Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims or Buddhists. Those are earthly ways to think of humanity. Of course there are persons, unique in their own individuality. Yet unique though they are, they are now perfectly one with God.”
But perhaps James Joyce in Finnegan's Wake put it most succinctly: “catholic means 'here comes everybody.'”
Some may read this review and suggest that its critique cannot be taken seriously because it is the work of one who entered into full communion with the Catholic Church. My response would be three-fold: (1) I make no claim to absolute objectivity, only that objectivity remains an ideal to which I am committed but which may not be achievable in this lifetime; (2) I did not leave one “remnant” to join another “remnant”; rather, I abandoned altogether the belief in classifying Christian denominations as being remnant or non-remnant; and (3) Christian faith is more about leaving unanswerable mysteries in the hands of a loving God than it is about having winning dogmatic answers for theological debates.
When comparing God’s Infinite Majesty, Mystery, and Mercy with humanity’s finiteness, fallenness, and frailty, one can only pray that God forgive us our sins and perhaps forgive us our theology most of all.
David A. Pendleton, former legislator and policy advisor to Hawaii’s Governor and a former Adventist minister, is an administrative law judge in Honolulu, Hawaii. Although he now is a practicing Catholic, he says he still has “a lot of aloha for the Adventist church.” (You can read his interview with Adventist Today here.)
You can buy Challenges to the Remnant
Search
- Tom Zwemer on Born of a Woman—Atonement and the Incarnation
- WD in Aus on Born of a Woman—Atonement and the Incarnation
- Nic Samojluk on Abortion: Is Required Parental Notification a Good Idea?
- Tom Zwemer on Pacific Union College Mourns
- Tom Zwemer on Born of a Woman—Atonement and the Incarnation
- Tom Zwemer on Iron Jawed Angels: The Fight that Shouldn't Have Been
- Aage Rendalen on Iron Jawed Angels: The Fight that Shouldn't Have Been
- Elaine Nelson on Iron Jawed Angels: The Fight that Shouldn't Have Been
- Michael on Iron Jawed Angels: The Fight that Shouldn't Have Been
- Your Friend on Build Muscle
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Hi David,
It seems just a bit disingenuous to suggest that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is just another Vatican office, comparable to any GC office. For its specific responsibilities, see Pastor Bonus, 48ff.
You seek to separate decrees of this office from Benedict. Yet the decree in question says clearly,
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
And is Moore suggesting that this decree changed or overrode Vatican 2? The document, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, in fact simply purports to answer questions that have been asked--namely, did Vatican 2 change historic Catholic teaching on the nature of the church? And the answer is just as simple: No. And to document its answer, it quotes from John XXIII, Paul VI, and the relevant Vatican 2 documents.
Thus,
Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
Because of this Ecclesiology, the Catholic church does not use the term "church" for any entity other than the Orthodox and Oriental churches that have what the Catholic church accepts as a valid episcopacy and valid sacraments. All others are termed "ecclesial communities"--again, citing Vatican 2.
As to who can be saved, the historic Catholic response is "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"--outside of the church there is no salvation. Vatican 2 didn't change that. Those who are validly baptized have a real, but imperfect, connection to the Catholic church, in Catholic theology, and this is the ground of their salvation (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 838).
Here's the Catechism's explanation:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."337
Some Catholic theologians since the 1960s have tried to argue that real doctrinal change did come about at the Council; they have appealed to what they termed "the spirit of Vatican 2." But ever since the Extraordinary Synod of 1985, the Catholic Church, under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, has taken great pains to remind Catholics and non-Catholics alike just what the Council said, and what it did not. That was one of the reasons that Extraordinary Synod called for a Catechism, to put the church's eternal teachings, and Vatican 2's pastoral application of them, into a fresh idiom. Both as a theologian and as pope, Ratzinger/Benedict has used the expression "hermeneutic of continuity" when speaking of how we interpret the conciliar decrees. He is quite clear that the council is to be interpreted in harmony with prior teaching of the church, as representing continuity, rather than discontinuity. This has been especially true in the area of liturgy, and explains his generous liberation of the pre-Vatican 2 mass. But it is equally true in the area of ecclesiology, as we see in this CDF decree and statements Ratzinger has made regarding ecumenism and interfaith relations.
Does William H. Shannon represent the magisterium of the Catholic church? Not if you are suggesting he's arguing on behalf of universalism. See another CDF declaration, Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. But if Shannon is simply saying what the words you quoted seem to say at face value, that full unity of the church is an eschatological reality, then I think both Catholics and Protestants would agree.
“In heaven the ecumenical goal is fully realized. No longer are there Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims or Buddhists. Those are earthly ways to think of humanity. Of course there are persons, unique in their own individuality. Yet unique though they are, they are now perfectly one with God.”
How many Adventists can fully accept that?
It represents more fully than any other, that we are all God's children; all labels removed, all doctrinal beliefs and hindrances to full communion forever erased.
This seems very much like toned down anti Catholicism to me. In truth, I find it a bit unrealistic that Adventists believe the Catholic Church will instate religious laws. If anything, it will be extreme fundamentalists in evangelical churchs who will try to instate religious laws.
The problem with such anti Catholic teachings is that it encourages denominational arrogance which is a plague that has yet to leave Adventism. Another thing that I find interesting is how similar the Catholic and Adventist beliefs regarding other Christians are. Both of them believe that if people have a reason to believe Adventist/Catholic teachings and refuse to do so will loose their salvation(or at least end up in purgatory). Also if you follow the extreme position that EGW is nearly infallible you are wandering close to the extreme Catholic position that the pope is infalliable.
I cannot help but wonder if we would be more effective affirming the decisions that the Catholic Church has made that move in the right direction and encouraging those Catholic viewpoints with which we can agree than highlighting our disagreements, especially when it is so clear that part of what we are dismayed about is really our own misunderstanding. In the late 19th century when Ellen White and other Adventist leaders wrote attacks on Catholic teachings it was in a very different context. The majority of Americans were Protestants and anti-Catholic sentiment was widespread. Besides, the real point of "The Great Controversy" is not to critique the Catholic faith, but to point out the hypocrisy of Protestant America that wanted to suppress Catholicism while at the same time establishing a national Sunday law.
Please tell us Monte, where, in recent years the Pontiff has moved in the right direction.
On speaking out for religious liberty in countries where it doesn't exsist. Sounds a lot like Adventism!
Thanks...
Frank
Aren't Protestant churches derivatives of the Roman Catholic Church(including Adventism)? They didn't really make a 'clean' break with Rome, did they? The teachings of Christ are not the foundation of the church of Christ...Protestant or Catholic.
Is it possible for the Roman Catholic Church to change at it's deepest levels? Is it too big, too old, and too committed to never changing? What happened to Pope John Paul I when he was about to implement sweeping changes? Was Vatican II a deep and fundamental change...or was it a superficial change?
Has anyone seen the movie, 'Brides of Christ'? Here is a sample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPm-YqtBq9k&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhkivB85tHY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQgHCQh2sJE.
It is an excellent movie, featuring a Catholic school in Australia in the 1960's, and the challenges of understanding and implementing the changes made during Vatican II. I honesty cried while watching it.
I have tried to not be a 'knee-jerk' anti-Catholic. I have participated in dozens of Catholic Masses, and found them to be quite inspiring. I have had numerous brief conversations with Catholic priests. Historically, it seems, that Adventism has had a 'knee-jerk' anti-Catholicism, without walking in the shoes of Catholics, and evaluating each issue on a case by case basis in an unbiased manner.
There are similarities in the two organizations. In fact, during the Mary Kay v Pacific Press case, the hierarchical structure of the Adventist Chruch was compared with that of the Catholic Church, and used as an Adventist defense in the case.
The bigger and older an organization becomes, the harder it is to avoid corruption and abuse. If the SDA Church was as large and old as the Catholic Church, I would expect similar levels of corruption and abuse. This is why it is important to maintain a competitive environment in the area of religion and politics, as well as in business. Competition(as long as it is constructive) helps keep everyone a lot more honest and above board.
If the 'Separated Bretheren' return to 'Mother Church'...the checks and balances will be gone. There will be no barrier to corruption, abuse, persecution...and worse. We need to love each other...but we need to constuctively compete with each other for everyone's benefit...including Roman Catholics.
Ellen White wrote directly and sometimes harshly regarding the Roman Catholic Church. Adventism has assumed that the Catholic Church cannot and will not change. I try to be optimistic. I am not fatalistic. I do not believe in absolute fore-knowledge. I believe that there can be a happy ending.
However, when I view videos, such as the following, I have serious questions and doubts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJZVxlqmSxY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BThwMi0cE. High-level conversations and agreements should not be entered into before all historical ethical deviations are thoroughly examined and discussed, with all of their implications and ramifications.
The Teachings of Jesus and the U.S. Constitution should be the basis of globalism...rather than a New World Order Theocracy. Go ahead...burn me. Well hello Silas...what are you doing here?
I am fascinated, "orthodoxymoron," that you bring up the idea of competition in the area of religion. It's a tricky word, of course - it can be the "winner defeats loser" variety, which is in opposition to what Pendleton suggests (and which I agree with): "Christian faith is more about leaving unanswerable mysteries in the hands of a loving God than it is about having winning dogmatic answers for theological debates."
But the "constructive" competition you bring up can be the "goaded to excellence by another's excellence" variety - a motivational factor in which looking at someone else's strengths helps us see ways we ourselves can improve.
We often see the religious intolerance of past (and present) times combated with an opposite view, of total acceptance and the lumping of denominations into one. Perhaps the idea of constructive competition gives us a twist that allows us to maintain our uniqueness as different communities, while having the humility to see that we have much to learn and that we can find inspiration and guidance from others around us.
Overall a pretty good review. The niceties of canon law are not easy for non-canonists. He gets it right about the nature of a responsum ad dubium, which is what this document is. It is intended to clarify questions about a magisterial teaching or document. The Catholic Church does teach that Christians who are not in full communion can indeed be saved.
Fr. Jim
Frank
Did you ever hear of the game Truth of Consequences?
The United States Constitution allows Religious Freedom.
Demoninations allow freedom of choice: Agree and belong or Disagree and be gone!
Brutal but not unconstitutional.
Spectrum gives us "be goners" an opportunity to speak our mind in civil tones.
Sometimes it seems like some of the "still attached" are
further out than the "be goners".
Aren't we glad that the Lord does the sorting? Tom
From David A. Pendleton
Normally I would allow a book review to speak for itself. But Bill Cork’s assertion of my being “disingenuous” compelled me to respond. Disingenuous is defined in some dictionaries as “insincere or calculating” and in others as “Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity.”
I can live with being called mistaken, wrong, or in error. I have been described as “not being a professional theologian.” That is true. Of the hundreds of decisions and orders I issue yearly as an administrative law judge, a few are appealed, and in the past few years a couple of those appeals have resulted in my being overturned by our Intermediate Court of Appeals. So I am fallible.
But to be called insincere is uncalled for. Cork implies that I don’t believe what I am writing. And I take an umbrage at the implication.
I have no idea how he can come to such a conclusion. Take issue with my position, Sir. But don’t question my sincerity, integrity, or honor.
As to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) being “just” a department of the Vatican – the word “just” is Cork’s word, not mine. It was not my intention to denigrate the work of the Congregation or minimize the importance or influence of the fine theologians who staff the Congregation. Cork is reading that into the review. That was certainly not my intended implication.
I am well aware of the prominence of and vital responsibility of this Vatican department. But it does not change the fact that it is a department. It has not the authority of a synod or council of bishops properly convened to vote on matters of Church doctrine. Its documents are not necessarily of the same status or authority as a document voted on by bishops.
The CDF being a department – perhaps even the most important department – does not change the fact that the document at issue was not and is not a Constitution, Declaration, or Decree – and, therefore, it cannot control, change, alter, or amend a Vatican II Constitution, Declaration, or Decree but instead is written in service of said documents as all commentary on any legal document is.
My point is simply that there is a ranking system ordered according to authority of documents in Catholicism. Attentiveness to this fact is the responsibility of any conscientious interpreter of Catholic doctrine or Catholic canon law. Chronology is not without importance, but hierarchy cannot be ignored. Today’s law review article does not change yesterday’s statute. The most recent Honolulu city ordinance does not amend Hawaii’s decades-old state constitution.
The CDF is the modern successor of what centuries ago was known as the Holy Office. It inquired into the writings of many individuals, including most famously that of Galileo.
This is the same Galileo who justifiably complained: “I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth is not the center and moves ....” [as quoted in William T. Vollmann, Uncentering the Earth, (2006), p. 234]
Today the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism provides that “We now know that the sun, the star of which the Earth and planets are satellites, forms part of an enormous system of starts known as the Galaxy.”
The fact that Catholic Christians today can read Copernicus’ The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres with approbation rather than condemnation, approval rather than disapproval, is an instantiation of the Catholic Church’s insistence that, while truth does not change, our perception/understanding of truth develops over time.
And with respect to a quotation of theologian William Shannon, universalism is neither the meaning of the author I quoted nor the position of the Catholic Church. The intent was to illustrate the warp and woof of God’s salvific will, not to call into question the necessity of the Christ’s saving work.
In closing, I note that it is this same Bill Cork who says I am “disingenuous” who himself wrote in a book published in 2005 of the “Sectarianism” of Seventh-day Adventism in a chapter he entitled “From Sectarianism to the Communion of the Saints,” which appeared in Journeys Home. I do not believe Adventism is a sect or is sectarian, but apparently Cork did. I can take issue with his position without calling him insincere.
If I were like some of the attorneys who argue cases before me in my courtroom, I might ask the question about Cork, “Was he disingenuous then or is he being disingenuous now?” But I consistently rule such questions as being compound and argumentative and, therefore, objectionable. But this is a conversation, not a court proceeding. Neither Moore’s book, nor my review, nor Cork’s blog entry is on trial here. We are trying to learn more about God.
My firm belief is that reasonable minds can disagree without being disagreeable. As Christians, it should all the more be said of us that we can converse and reach contrary conclusions without calling into question one another’s sincerity or integrity. (At least Cork did not question my status as a Christian. It is not entirely clear whether ultimately Marvin Moore considers Catholics to be Christians.)
In conclusion, God is an awesome God. No believer has a monopoly on truth about God. There will never come a time – in this life or the one to come – when we will have learned all that there is to learn about God. For truly, as the prophet Isaiah has said:
“12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
or weighed the mountains on the scales
and the hills in a balance?
“13 Who has understood the mind of the LORD,
or instructed him as his counselor?”
[40:12-14 (New International Version)]
Dave, I appreciate your sending me the note to let me know of your response.
But I think you're blowing smoke, and obscuring what is the main point of Catholic ecclesiology--what truly separates the Catholic Church from all other churches, its own self-identity as the visible Mystical Body of Christ.
Now, the Vatican bureaucracy is part of the governing, teaching, and sanctifying office of the pope—the CDF, assisting him in his role of teaching, which is part of the ordinary magisterium. This decree was issued by the pope, in his name, under his authority, with his approval. He's doing the teaching here.
As Fr. Jim notes, a response to a question doesn't create new doctrine, but it certainly does clarify it, and the document in question is in keeping with universal Catholic teaching, before and after Vatican 2, that, in this case, the Catholic church has a unique role to play in salvation. Yes, non-Catholics can be saved, but it is because of their relationship to the Church as the Catechism (also part of the ordinary magisterium) makes clear.
Don't water down Catholic teaching. Let it speak for itself, with the force that it does.
The Honorable Judge Pendleton
Thank you for your restraint and measured response to Bill Cork. Certainly his characterization was out of place. It seems strange coming from Bill. He usually is quite careful with his pen.
The Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Vatican is quite distorted, particularly when the structure of the General Conference takes several parallels to the Vatican in its pronouncements and the weight of its decisions.
Certainly church history has enough soiled linen to make us all blush. That includes Luther, Calvin, and E.G. White.
Even King David makes Bill Clinton look like a saint.
In these times of great stress and peril, our prayer must be "Even so come Lord Jesus." Tom
David,
I hope you will not take offense that I address you not as “The Honorable Judge Pendleton,” but rather as “David,” a brother in Jesus Christ.
I did read your blog with great interest for a special reason. My doctoral dissertation dealt with the issue of abortion, especially the dramatic shift in attitude towards abortion by the Adventist church, and I have identified myself in the past as an Adventist regarding Sabbath observance and the state of the dead, but as a Catholic regarding the issue of abortion. [See http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html ]
In your article, you made a brief reference to the “beast of prophecy,” and this picked my curiosity, since I have come to realize that the correct way of identifying the beast of Revelation is not by the way the religious and political institutions have behaved in the past, but rather by the way they behave in the present.
There is no denial that the Church of Rome did persecute the faithful Remnant in the past through the infamous inquisition, but the Catholic Church has apologized for this shameful behavior. What can we say about the present? While the entire world is engaged in the genocide of the unborn, the Catholic Pope has been the most adamant defender of the unborn’s right to life.
In contrast, the Adventist Church has compromised on this issue, and some SDA owned medical institutions have gone as far as offering elective abortions to their clients. Therefore: Who is doing the work of the “beast of prophecy” today? In Australia, there is a likelihood that Catholic Hospitals may have to close for their refusal to compromise on this issue; and we are not talking about performing abortion, but merely the refusal to referring pregnant women to other medical entities who do offer such services.
The above considerations make me wonder as to which church is God’s “Remnant” on earth. The Remnant is defined in Revelation as those who keep God’s Commandments. If Catholics worship God on the wrong day of the week, and Adventists have compromised on the abortion issue, which the original SDA labeled as a violation of the Sixth Commandment, then who is God’s Remnant today? Which action is more offensive to heaven, worshipping the Lord on the wrong day of the week, or killing the innocent babies before they have had their chance to see the light of day?
We Adventists have been teaching that the final test that will determine our eternal destiny will be our faithfulness regarding the observance of the Sabbath. Did Jesus ever make such a prediction? I can’t find one; nevertheless, I do find what the Lord stated would determine our eternal destiny: the way we treat “the least of these.” [See Matthew 25]
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Tom,
Regarding your comments dated on 27 September 2008 at 9:43.
I fully agree with the following statement you made: "Adventism has assumed that the Catholic Church cannot and will not change."
How true, and how mistaken we have been. Someone has taken the time to count the number of times the Catholic Church has apologized for its past mistakes, and reported that such number exceeded 100.
How many times have we, Adventists, admitted that we have been wrong? I know of only one, and it came from the German and Austrian SDA Church expressing their regret for the Adventist cooperation with the Nazi regime over half a century ago.
Perhaps, in this respect, there is something we can learn from the Catholic Church.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Nic
The Adventist Church has copied almost the entire Catholic structure. Infallibility of E.G. White, The Structure of the General Conference, The inquisition of heterodoxy high and low. The protection of the ordained. The complexity of accounting practices. Preying on the uneducated. Using fear as a great motivator, copying both their educational and health care systems.
That is why, institutionalism is not the answer to salvation.
In my experience, men and women of God are about equally distributed among Roman Catholics and Seventh-day Adventists.
Most of whom are in some way or other out of set with the central control. Isn't it wonderful that Jesus Christ came to save individuals and not institutions? Recall His debates with the institutional church of His day and the end result!
Tom
Tom,
I read your comments dated 28 September 2008 at 8:33, and I think that you are right again. This reminds me of the parable of the farmer with two sons. The first one willingly agreed to go and work in his father vineyars, but did not go. The other refused to comply, but eventually changed his mind and did what his father had asked him to do.
This applies, I believe, to the issue of abortion and our alleged high regardo for God's Commandments. We faulted the Catholic Church for disregarding the Fourth Commandment and making it of no effect. Then we turned around and did the same, or worse, with the Sixth, which forbids the killing of the innocent.
The Catholics may be wrong on the state of the dead, but they are surely right about the state of the living. Catholic hospitals refuse to perform abortions, while our SDA hospitals do them with the blessing of the General Conference.
And I just learned from a former Adventist that most Catholic theologians are now teaching that hell is merely a metaphor for for the sinners eternal separation from God, which means that they may no longer be wrong about the state of the dead.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
The catholic church has a ecumenical strcuture within the General Conference. I say this after a two years research. you will her more later on. I am an Adventist trying to understand contemporary theological trends.
God Bless you
Post new comment